ÿWPCÕ0 uº³ƒ€ 7h¼D1úº;• ævø"óÆâ‡[ ¦R`iìĶI´é †Ï }xw"°¶j½ðR½VþÑ*ïÀÞ¿O”$ó¨ÛäDå¡ùuÕàÙû×Ï«V¥|ýègö'*Q³‰ÐÕmt9žÂ:}ˆ˜¥~” E9×KÕDâÛã¶ –™T¢#> ŒÒ¡‘x=„*Ç»kô@æsGxßE¹NA {Öòse»ÕV-ÕLÿªœŸ&(³YY«ê…~Ys©ÚÕÌ_³_ÏÚýšd´2I^ØÙøø£ ¿É^~øø1ǤQP7gö˜ K:“Ô´X5àƒG7²¯’5$¡‘O>¶…>CPÎU-:d±þäw:±«á`|fxlª .ÔLNˆÞÇ$Ô¤IÇÑþô‰îJX%É®”® oz#ä⎀Ø<{íÊÓó¯÷“½aÙ)Ÿ‚Í";Þ…šú£êª^ú ‚aÏbÔI9YøG´QŽ_~B·»oêC¼ %UP®*’*¥r“xo„Þ"få®™€Pv Ø–]@^Ž$Ú¼ÉD‹´PTU·š€dKc ”Tr!¤¾Ëjág»,âBdq âûe[±¶ÚÇêÒmô{PªCh %°^ ¶ 0ˆÂU.NJw˜4œ° z¿Ò9  m #Á$ UNå Æ3 Æù Æ¿ Æ…UNKN™ 0D› 0UßE4 0ã6 0à 0Ýù 0ÚÖ 0×° 0Ô‡ 0Ñ[ 0Î, 0Cú 0Ñ= 0Î 0ËÜ 0ȧ 0Åo 0Â4 0¿ö 0ºµ 0@o 0ί 0Ë} 0ÈH 0Å 0ÂÕ b—! 0¿Ÿ! 0¼^" 0·#Ñ#UJá$N+%y***************************** 0ëž+ž+ž+ž+ B‰,‰, 0¤¦, D3J- D-}- 0Kª-ª- ASõ-ÆH. 0¤/ 0D²/ A«ö/ö/ö/ö/ö/ö/ 04¡0»÷–Ø,s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜yÔ,àͦ3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 TN PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*D+J ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+J ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+J ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+J ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+J ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+J ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+J ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*/+J ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*DJ ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AJ ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>J ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;J ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8J ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5J ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2J ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(/J ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(DJ ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AJ ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>J ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;J ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8J ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(5J ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2J ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&/J ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Ý ƒR²Ä$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô 5 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWoodland€filed€a€post„argument€motion€to€include€the€1965€amendment€in€the€appellate€record.€€The€motionÐ ° Ðis€granted..ô\  `‹2Times New Roman Greek DÝ ƒR²Ä$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô 5 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€illustrations€listed€in€Restatement€(Third)€of€Property:€Ô_ÔServitudesÔ_Ô€ðð€6.10€include€the€following:Ð ° ÐÌÒS°ÒÒ°ÒThe€declaration€for€Green€Acres€provides€for€amendment€of€the€declaration€by€the€affirmative€voteÐ 8ˆ Ðof€owners€of€two„thirds€of€the€lots.€€Lots€in€Green€Acres€are€restricted€to€residential€use,€except€forÐ üL Ðparcels€owned€by€the€association,€which€are€restricted€to€recreational€use.€€Three€lots€at€the€entranceÐ À Ðto€the€subdivision€fronting€on€State€Route€5€are€acquired€by€a€grocery„store€developer,€which€seeksÐ „Ô Ðand€obtains€the€consent€of€the€owners€of€two„thirds€of€the€lots€to€an€amendment€that€permits€the€threeÐ H ˜ Ðlots€to€be€used€for€retail„commercial€purposes.€€The€owners€of€lots€nearest€the€proposed€developmentÐ  \ Ðall€oppose€the€amendment.€€The€conclusion€would€be€justified€that€the€amendment€is€invalid€withoutÐ Ð  Ðtheir€consent.Ð ” ä  ÐÒ°SÒÒ°*Òò òòòÌóóó óRestatement€(Third)€of€Property:€Ô_ÔServitudesÔ_Ô€ðð€6.10,€Illustration€7.€  Ý ƒR²Ä$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô 5 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Amy€Wilson,€Judith€Johnson,€and€Daniel€Powell€will€be€collectively€referred€to€in€this€Opinion€as€ð ðplaintiffÐ ° Ðhomeowners.ðð(|G2²Ä$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«Íò»»Ô d(|3¿x$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿x$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK&c$"ð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼I»»»ÔÑ8€WeXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î ¸î»¼IÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼I»îî ¸ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€28,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XWeX»¼IÔÌò òÔ#†¼I»XXWeô#ÔAMY€WILSON,€JUDITH€JOHNSON,€òòandóó€DANIEL€POWELL€Ð úJ Ðv.€Ð  ^ ÐWOODLAND€PRESBYTERIAN€SCHOOLÔ‡XWeX»¼IÔó óÐ " r ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CH„00„1455„1€€€€€€Walter€L.€Evans,€ChancellorÐ ^  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00054„COA„R3„CVÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€case€involves€the€application€of€protective€covenants€in€a€residential€subdivision.€€The€plaintiffsÐ  ð Ðare€homeowners€in€the€subdivision.€€The€defendant€school€is€located€adjacent€to€the€subdivision€andÐ ŒÜ Ðalso€owns€two€lots€in€the€subdivision.€These€two€lots€are€near€the€plaintiffsðð€lots.€€All€lots€in€theÐ xÈ Ðsubdivision€are€subject€to€a€protective€covenant€which€limits€structures€to€one€or€two€familyÐ d´ Ðdwellings€and€incidental€outbuildings.€€The€school€began€building€a€playground€on€its€lots.€€TheÐ P  Ðplaintiff€homeowners€filed€a€lawsuit€to€enforce€the€protective€covenants.€€After€trial,€the€trial€courtÐ <Œ Ðordered€the€removal€of€permanent€playground€equipment€but€allowed€use€of€movable€playgroundÐ (x Ðequipment€on€the€schoolððs€lots.€€The€school€then€obtained€the€approval€of€a€majority€of€the€lotÐ d Ðowners€in€the€subdivision€of€an€amendment€to€the€covenants€to€remove€the€restrictions€from€the€twoÐ P Ðlots€owned€by€the€school.€€In€light€of€this,€the€school€filed€a€motion€to€modify€the€judgment.€€TheÐ ì< Ðtrial€court€denied€the€motion,€finding€that€the€amendment€was€void€because€it€did€not€apply€to€all€lotsÐ Ø( Ðwithin€the€subdivision.€€The€school€appealed.€€We€affirm,€finding€that€the€homeowners€are€not€barredÐ Ä Ðfrom€enforcing€the€protective€covenant€and€that,€because€the€amendment€to€the€covenant€was€neitherÐ ° Ðapplicable€to€all€of€the€lots€subject€to€the€covenant€nor€approved€by€nearby€affected€lot€owners,€theÐ œ ì Ðamendment€was€invalid.Ð ˆ!Ø  ÐÌÓ¨Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ `#°" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼I»àXWe·#ÔÔ‡XWeX.¼IÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.,óó€andÐ 8%ˆ $ ÐòòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $&t!% ÐÌSaul€C.€Belz,€Robert€S.€Kirk,€and€Quitman€R.€Ledyard,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð ü'L#' ÐWoodland€Presbyterian€School.Ð è(8$( ÐÌRichard€L.€Winchester,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Amy€Wilson,€Judith€Johnson,€andÐ À*&* ÐDaniel€Powell.Ð ¬+ü&+ ÐÓñ ÓÌò òÐ „-Ô(-ý ÐOPINIONó óÔ#†¼I»XXWe #ÔÔ‡XWeX»¼IÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼I»XXWe†#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XWeX»¼IÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔò òòòó óóóÓ Óà  àò òó óÔ#†XWeXX XWe#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔThe€Defendant/Appellant€Woodland€Presbyterian€School€(ð ðWoodlandðð)€is€a€school€locatedÐ ˆØ Ðadjacent€to€the€Gates€subdivision€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€Woodland€also€owns€two€lots,€lots€80€andÐ tÄ Ð81,€within€the€subdivision.€€Ô#†XWeXX XWeƒ#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔPlaintiff/Appellees€Judith€Johnson€and€Daniel€€Powellò òó ó€are€homeownersÐ `° Ðwho€own€separate€lots€in€the€Gates€subdivision€which€are€adjacent€to€lots€80€and€81.€Ð L œ ÐPlaintiff/Appellee€Amy€Wilson€owns€a€lot€in€the€subdivision€located€across€the€street€from€lots€80Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€81.׃6×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†XWeXX XWeÉ#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔThe€covenants€for€the€Gates€subdivision€provide€in€pertinent€part:Ð $ t ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓ ÓThese€covenants€are€to€run€with€the€land€and€shall€be€binding€on€all€persons€&€partiesÐ ü L  Ðclaiming€under€them€until€July€1,€1978,€at€which€time€said€covenants€shall€beÐ è 8  Ðautomatically€extended€for€successive€periods€of€ten€years€unless€by€a€vote€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðmajority€of€the€then€owners€of€the€lots,€it€is€agreed€to€change€said€covenants€in€wholeÐ À  Ðor€in€part.Ð ¬ü  Ðà@ÀÀ&ìà*€€€*€€€*ˆÐ ˜è  ÐNo€structure€shall€be€erected,€altered,€placed,€or€permitted€to€remain€on€anyÐ „Ô  Ðresidential€building€plot€other€than€a€one€or€two€family€dwelling,€not€to€exceed€twoÐ pÀ Ðstories€in€height,€and€a€private€garage€for€not€more€than€two€cars,€and€anyÐ \¬ Ðoutbuildings€incidential€(sic)€to€the€residential€use€of€the€lot.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@§§%ìà*€€€*€€€*€ˆÐ  p ÐNo€noxious€or€offensive€trade€or€activity€shall€be€carried€on€upon€any€lot,€now€(sic)Ð  \ Ðshall€anything€be€done€thereon€which€may€be€or€become€an€annoyance€or€nuisanceÐ øH Ðto€the€neighborhood.Ð ä4 ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÔ#†XWeXX XWe§#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔÓ Óà  àIn€1994,€Woodland€proposed€a€plan€to€construct€a€driveway€on€lots€80€and€81€to€provide€Ð ¼  Ðadditional€access€to€the€school€and€church,€and€also€proposed€to€build€a€playground€on€the€remainingÐ ¨ø Ðportion€of€the€lots.€€Ô#†XWeXX XWe,#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔWhen€the€plaintiff€homeowners€learned€that€Woodland€intended€to€use€the€lotsÐ ”ä Ðas€a€driveway€and€a€playground,€they€sent€a€letter€to€Woodland€advising€the€school€that€the€proposedÐ €Ð Ðplan€would€violate€the€subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenants.€€Woodland€thereafter€abandoned€its€plansÐ l¼ Ðto€construct€a€driveway€and€playground€on€lots€80€and€81.€€Despite€this,€in€1996,€Woodland€had€theÐ X ¨ Ðhouse€on€lot€81€removed,€built€a€fence€around€the€lot,€and€placed€small,€plastic,€movable€playgroundÐ D!” Ðequipment€on€the€lot.€€€€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àIn€early€March€2000,€Woodland€met€with€several€residents€of€the€subdivision€to€discussÐ $X" Ðdeveloping€lots€80€and€81€into€a€permanent€playground.€€The€plaintiff€homeowners€again€sent€a€letterÐ ô$D # Ðto€Woodland€expressing€concern€about€the€possible€construction€of€a€playground.€€Nevertheless,€inÐ à%0!$ Ðearly€July€2000,€Woodland€began€installing€playground€equipmentÔ#†XWeXX XWe‰#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔ.€€A€third€letter€was€then€sent€toÐ Ì&"% ÐWoodland,€objecting€to€the€construction€of€the€playground€and€emphasizing€that€any€expensesÐ ¸'#& Ðincurred€by€Woodland€in€the€removal€of€the€playground€equipment€would€be€ð ðself„inflicted.ðð€€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àOn€July€27,€2000,€the€plaintiff€homeowners€filed€a€lawsuit€against€Woodland€in€chanceryÐ ° Ðcourt,€arguing€that€the€construction€of€the€playground€was€a€violation€of€the€subdivisionððs€protectiveÐ œì Ðcovenants€and,€in€addition,€a€violation€of€Shelby€County€zoning€ordinances.€€The€plaintiffÐ ˆØ Ðhomeowners€sought€an€order€enjoining€any€further€construction€of€the€playground,€as€well€as€anÐ tÄ Ðorder€requiring€the€removal€of€the€playground€equipment€that€had€already€been€installed.€€In€itsÐ `° Ðanswer,€Woodland€asserted€that€the€homeowners€failed€to€object€to€the€movable€playgroundÐ L œ Ðequipment€used€previously€and€failed€to€object€to€the€permanent€playground€until€the€constructionÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€80%€completed.€€Based€on€this€assertion,€Woodland€argued€that€the€plaintiff€homeownersððÐ $ t Ðclaims€were€barred€under€the€doctrines€of€estoppel€and€laches.€€Woodland€also€asserted€that€theÐ  ` Ðplaintiff€homeowners€failed€to€complain€about€prior€violations€of€the€restrictive€covenants€by€otherÐ ü L  Ðproperty€owners€in€the€subdivision€and€that€their€claims€were€therefore€barred€by€the€equitableÐ è 8  Ðdoctrine€of€ð ðunclean€hands.ðð€€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àA€trial€was€held€in€September€2000.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€Ô#†XWeXX XWeä#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔthe€trial€court€found€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€use€of€the€lots€as€a€playground€did€not€violate€the€covenant€against€noxious€or€offensiveÐ ˜è  Ðactivities.€€However,€the€trial€court€also€concluded€thatÔ#†XWeXX XWeÓ$#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔ€the€construction€of€a€permanent€playgroundÐ „Ô  Ðviolated€the€covenant€restricting€the€building€of€structures€to€one€or€two€family€dwellings€andÐ pÀ Ðincidental€outbuildings.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€playground€equipment€installed€by€WoodlandÐ \¬ Ðin€July€2000€was€brightly€colored,€embedded€in€concrete,€and€towered€above€the€residentialÐ H˜ Ðstructures€in€the€neighborhood.€€Ô#†XWeXX XWeï%#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔThe€trial€court€ordered€Woodland€to€remove€the€permanentÐ 4„ Ðplayground€equipment€but€allowed€Woodland€to€continue€to€use€the€lots€as€a€playground€so€long€asÐ  p Ðany€playground€equipment€utilized€was€of€a€movable€or€portable€nature.€€€€à  àÐ  \ Ðà  àAfter€this€order,€Woodland€began€a€campaign€to€amend€the€subdivisionððs€protectiveÐ ä4 Ðcovenants€to€exempt€lots€80€and€81€from€their€coverage.€€The€amendment€procedures€required€anÐ Ð  Ðaffirmative€vote€from€the€majority€of€lot€owners€in€the€subdivision€in€order€to€amend€the€covenants.€Ð ¼  ÐÔ#†XWeXX XWeí'#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔWoodland€collected€signatures€from€54%€of€the€lot€owners,€none€of€whom€were€the€plaintiffÐ ¨ø Ðhomeowners,€and€an€amendment€to€the€protective€covenants€was€recorded€in€the€Registerððs€office.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€amendment€provides:Ô#†XWeXX XWe½*#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔÐ €Ð ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓ ÓThe€Protective€Ô_ÔCovenants.Ô_Ô€.€.€shall€not€apply€to€Lots€80€and€81€in€the€GatesÐ X ¨ ÐSubdivision.€€Provided,€however,€that€this€Amendment€shall€only€remain€in€full€forceÐ D!” Ðand€effect€so€long€as€said€Lots€80€and€81€in€the€Gates€Subdivision€are€used€byÐ 0"€  ÐWoodland€Presbyterian€Church€or€Woodland€Presbyterian€School€as€a€playground.Ð #l! ÐÌÒ°0,ÒÒ°ÒÓ ÓIn€light€of€this,€Woodland€filed€a€motion€pursuant€to€Rule€59.04€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ ô$D # ÐProcedure€to€modify€the€judgment.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€amendment€was€not€valid€since€itÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€not€approved€by€the€adversely€affected€lot€owners,€and€concluded€in€addition€that,€under€theÐ Ì&"% Ðamendment€procedures,€any€amendment€would€not€be€effective€until€the€end€of€the€10„yearÐ ¸'#& Ðautomatic€renewal€period.€€Consequently,€on€December€19,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdenying€Woodlandððs€motion€to€modify€or€amend€the€judgment.€€Woodland€now€appeals€from€theÐ )à$( Ðoriginal€judgment€as€well€as€the€denial€of€its€motion€to€modify€the€judgment.€€Ô#†XWeXX XWeü+#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔà x àÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWoodland€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€several€respects.€€Woodland€first€argues€that€theÐ ° Ðrestrictive€covenants€were€abandoned€by€the€homeownersðð€acquiescence€to€other€nonconformingÐ œì Ðstructures€within€the€subdivision.€€In€addition,€Woodland€argues€that€the€plaintiff€homeownersððÐ ˆØ Ðclaims€are€€barred€by€the€defenses€of€estoppel,€laches,€and€unclean€hands.€€Woodland€also€argues€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€amendment€removing€the€restrictive€covenants€from€lots€80€and€81€was€valid€and€that€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€erred€in€denying€Woodlandððs€Rule€59€motion€to€modify€the€judgment.€€Lastly,€WoodlandÐ L œ Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€find€that€an€amendment€to€the€covenants€adoptedÐ 8 ˆ Ðin1965€served€to€remove€the€restrictions€from€all€lots€in€the€subdivision.€€The€plaintiff€homeownersÐ $ t Ðappeal€the€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€which€allows€Woodland€to€maintain€a€playground€on€theÐ  ` Ðlots€so€long€as€the€playground€equipment€is€movable.€€Ô#†XWeXX XWeh1#ÔÐ ü L  Ðà  àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcorrectness€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòò òCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óóó ó,Ð À  Ð919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€The€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions€are€reviewedÐ ¬ü  Ðòòde€novo€óówith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCampbellóóó ó,€919€S.W.2d€at€35.€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àWoodland€first€argues€that€acquiescence€to€prior€violations€of€the€covenants,€includingÐ pÀ Ðpurported€violations€by€the€plaintiffs,€resulted€in€abandonment€of€the€restrictive€scheme€and€that,Ð \¬ Ðtherefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€enforcing€the€covenants€against€Woodland.€€In€a€similar€vein,Ð H˜ ÐWoodland€argues€that€the€plaintiff€homeowners€may€not€seek€equitable€relief€because€one€ð ðwhoÐ 4„ Ðcomes€into€a€court€of€equity€asking€its€aid,€must€come€with€clean€hands.ðð€€ò òòòBrandon€v.€Wrightó óóó,€838Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€532,€534€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€record€indicates€that€several€lot€owners,€includingÐ  \ Ðsome€of€the€plaintiff€homeowners,€had€movable€playground€equipment€on€their€lots.€€In€addition,Ð øH ÐWoodland€had€movable,€plastic€playground€equipment€on€its€lots€prior€to€constructing€the€newÐ ä4 Ðpermanent€playground€in€July€2000.€€Woodland€contends€that€the€residents€did€not€complain€aboutÐ Ð  Ðthese€nonconforming€ð ðstructures,ðð€and€that€therefore€the€restrictive€scheme€of€the€subdivision€wasÐ ¼  Ðabandoned.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àThe€law€of€abandonment€was€discussed€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔScandlynÔ_Ô€€v.€McDill€Columbus€Corp.ó óóó,€895Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€342€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€ò òòòScandlyn€ó óóóheld:Ð l¼ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Ò[I]n€order€for€community€violation€to€constitute€an€abandonment,€it€must€be€soÐ D!” Ðgeneral€as€to€frustrate€the€object€of€the€scheme€with€the€result€that€enforcement€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðrestriction€involved€would€seriously€impair€the€value€of€the€burdened€lot€withoutÐ #l! Ðsubstantially€benefitting€the€adjoining€lots.€€Accordingly,€sporadic€and€distantÐ $X" Ðviolations€do€not€in€themselves€furnish€adequate€evidence€of€abandonment,€althoughÐ ô$D # Ðthey€may€be€considered€in€connection€with€outside€changes.Ð à%0!$ ÐÒ°ð=ÒÒ°Òò òòòId.ó óóó€at€349€(citing€20€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòCovenants,€Conditions,€Etc.óó€Ô‡3XWeXXXWeÔðð€272€(1965))Ô#†XWeXX3XWeÍ@#Ô.€€Thus,€in€order€toÐ ¸'#& Ðestablish€abandonment,€the€defendant€must€show€that€there€were€previous€violations€of€the€covenantsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€which€the€community€acquiesced,€and€that€these€violations€frustrated€the€communityððs€restrictiveÐ )à$( Ðscheme.€€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àWoodland€asserts€that€the€only€distinction€between€the€playground€equipment€located€onÐ ° Ðhomeownersðð€lots€throughout€the€subdivision€and€the€playground€equipment€on€WoodlandððsÐ œì Ðplayground€is€that€Woodlandððs€equipment€is€not€movable.€€Woodland€argues€that€the€definition€ofÐ ˆØ Ða€ð ðstructureðð€does€not€require€it€to€be€immovable,€and€concludes€from€this€that€the€portableÐ tÄ Ðplayground€equipment€on€homeownersðð€lots€are€also€nonconforming€ð ðstructures.ðð€€Based€on€thisÐ `° Ðconclusion,€Woodland€contends€that€there€was€abandonment€of€the€restrictive€scheme€of€theÐ L œ Ðsubdivision.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ Óà  àThe€term€ð ðstructureðð€is€defined€in€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€as:€€Ð  ` ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà8 ` àAny€construction,€or€any€production€or€piece€of€work€artificially€builtÐ è 8  Ðup€or€composed€of€parts€joined€together€in€some€definite€manner.€Ð Ô$  ÐThat€which€is€built€or€constructed;€an€edifice€or€building€of€any€kind.€Ð À  Ðà ¸ àA€combination€of€materials€to€form€a€construction€forÐ ¬ü  Ðoccupancy,€use€or€ornamentation€whether€òòinstalledóó€on,€above,€orÐ ˜è  Ðbelow€the€surface€of€a€parcel€of€land.€€€€Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌÒ°¸EÒÒ°ÒÓ ÓBlackððs€Law€Dictionary€1424€(6òòthóó€ed.€1990)€(emphasis€added).€€Under€this€definition,€a€ð ðstructureððÐ \¬ Ðrequires€installation€ð ðon,€above,€or€below€the€surface€of€a€parcel€of€land.ðð€€The€trial€court€held€thatÐ H˜ ÐWoodlandððs€playground€equipment€€ð ðconstitutes€.€.€.€a€structure€because€it€is€firmly€affixed€inÐ 4„ Ðconcrete€footing,€and€it€is€an€immovable€object.ðð€€We€find€no€error€in€this€conclusion.€€Moreover,Ð  p Ðthe€plastic,€portable€playground€equipment€used€by€homeowners,€as€well€as€by€Woodland,€are€notÐ  \ Ðð ðstructures.ðð€€Therefore,€the€use€of€such€portable€playground€equipment€by€homeowners€is€not€aÐ øH Ðviolation€which€can€be€the€basis€for€finding€abandonment€of€the€subdivisionððs€restrictive€scheme.€Ð ä4 ÐLikewise,€the€homeownersðð€use€of€backyard€portable€playground€equipment€provides€no€basis€forÐ Ð  ÐWoodlandððs€ð ðunclean€handsðð€defense.€€Ô‡ XWeXXXWeÔÐ ¼  Ðà  àWoodland€next€contends€that€the€plaintiffsðð€lawsuit€was€barred€by€the€defenses€of€estoppelÐ ”ä Ðand€laches.€€Woodland€asserts€that,€ð ðrather€than€waiting€until€Woodland€spent€a€quarter€of€a€millionÐ €Ð Ðdollars€constructing€the€playground€center€and€then€suddenly€running€to€the€courthouse,€the€PlaintiffsÐ l¼ Ðshould€have€brought€this€action€back€in€1996,€when€Woodland€began€operating€a€playground€andÐ X ¨ Ðmaintaining€moveable€playground€equipment€on€Lot€81.ðð€€Ð D!” Ðà  àThe€right€to€enforce€a€restrictive€covenant€may€be€forfeited€by€waiver€or€estoppel.€€InÐ #l! Ðò òòòÔ_ÔScandlynÔ_Ôó óóó,€cited€above,€this€Court€held:Ð $X" ÐÒ°ÒThe€right€to€enforce€a€restrictive€covenant€may€be€lost€.€.€.€ð ðwhere,€by€failing€to€act,€one€leadsÐ à%0!$ Ðanother€to€believe€that€he€is€not€going€to€insist€upon€the€covenant,€and€such€other€person€isÐ Ì&"% Ðdamaged€thereby,€or€whereby€landowners€in€a€tract€or€subdivision€fail€to€object€to€generalÐ ¸'#& Ðand€continuous€violations€of€restrictionsÔ#†XWeXX XWe"L#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔ.€€If€the€party€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€the€covenantsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âin€any€way€by€inaction€lulls€suspicion€of€his€demands€to€the€harm€of€the€other€or€if€there€has€Ð )à$( Ðbeen€actual€or€passive€acquiescence€in€the€performance€of€the€act€complained€of,€then€equityÐ ° Ðâ âwill€ordinarily€refuse€aid.ððÐ œì ÐÒ°kOÒò òòòÔ_ÔScandlynÔ_Ôó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€at€349€(quoting€20€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòCovenants,€Conditions,€Etc.€óóÔ#†XWeXX XWe Q#ÔÔ‡3XWeXXXWeÔðð€273€(1965)).€Ð tÄ ЀÔ#†XWeXX3XWepS#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔà  àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€homeowners€sent€three€separate€letters€to€Woodland€officialsÐ L œ Ðbeginning€in€1994,€informing€them€that€the€proposed€playground€was€a€violation€of€the€restrictiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðcovenants€and€that€they€would€ð ðtake€whatever€legal€steps€are€necessary.ðð€€Any€failure€by€the€plaintiffÐ $ t Ðhomeowners€to€object€to€small€movable€playground€equipment€is€inapposite€since€such€equipmentÐ  ` Ðdid€not€violate€the€restrictive€covenant.€€Under€these€circumstances,€Woodlandððs€assertion€that€it€wasÐ ü L  Ðð ðlulledðð€into€spending€considerable€sums€installing€permanent€playground€structures,€embedded€inÐ è 8  Ðconcrete€and€ð ðtowering€aboveðð€nearby€homes,€must€be€deemed€fallacious.Ð Ô$  Ðà  àWoodland€also€asserts€the€defense€of€laches.€€The€doctrine€of€laches€requires€that€a€partyÐ ¬ü  Ðseeking€equitable€relief€assert€his€claim€without€unexcusable€delay.€€ò òòòArcher€v.€Archeró óóó,€907€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð412,€416€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Despite€letters€from€the€homeowners€dating€back€to€1994,Ð „Ô  ÐWoodland€asserts€that€the€homeowners€were€required€to€actually€file€suit€prior€to€WoodlandÐ pÀ Ðbeginning€installation€of€the€permanent€equipment.€€However,€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€did€not€arise€untilÐ \¬ Ðconstruction€of€the€permanent€playground€began€in€July€2000.€€The€plaintiffs€filed€their€claim€shortlyÐ H˜ Ðthereafter.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€defense€of€laches€would€not€bar€the€plaintiffsðð€claim.Ð 4„ Ðà  àWoodland€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Woodlandððs€Rule€59€motion€toÐ  \ Ðmodify€the€judgment€because€an€amendment€to€the€covenants€was€adopted€removing€the€restrictionsÐ øH Ðfrom€Woodlandððs€lots.€€The€amendment€to€the€covenants€was€adopted€by€54%€of€the€lot€owners,Ð ä4 Ðremoving€the€restrictions€from€lots€80€and€81.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€amendment€was€invalidÐ Ð  Ðbecause€it€did€not€apply€uniformly€to€all€lots€within€the€subdivision€and,€in€addition,€the€amendmentÐ ¼  Ðcould€not€become€effective€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€10„year€automatic€renewal€period.Ð ¨ø ÐÔ#†XWeXX XWeÚS#Ôà  àThe€parties€agree€that€the€issue€of€whether€a€restrictive€covenant€can€be€amended€only€as€toÐ €Ð Ðindividual€lots€within€the€area€covered€by€the€covenant€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€Ð l¼ ÐIn€support€of€its€argument,€Woodland€cites€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô‡3XWeXXXWeÔððÔ#†XWeXX3XWe§^#Ô€66„9„401€(1993),€whichÐ X ¨ Ðprovides:€ð ðAny€waiver€of€a€restrictive€covenant€applicable€to€a€subdivision€lot,€when€granted€for€aÐ D!” Ðspecifically€named€business,€shall€be€effective€as€a€waiver€for€any€other€business,€regardless€of€name,Ð 0"€  Ðwhich€operates€substantially€the€same€type€of€business€as€the€business€for€which€the€waiver€wasÐ #l! Ðoriginally€granted.ðð€€Woodland€argues€that€this€statute€permits€the€waiver€of€a€restrictive€covenantÐ $X" Ðas€to€a€particular€lot€within€a€subdivision.€€However,€while€the€statute€appears€to€allude€to€the€waiverÐ ô$D # Ðof€a€restrictive€covenant€for€an€individual€business€within€the€area€covered€by€the€covenant,€it€doesÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€authorize€such€a€waiver,€and€certainly€does€not€address€whether€a€non„uniform€amendment€mayÐ Ì&"% Ðbe€adopted€without€the€approval€of€lot€owners€who€are€adversely€affected.€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€ð ðit€would€be€unfair€and€inequitable€for€the€Court€toÐ )à$( Ðallow€owners€who€are€not€within€immediate€proximity€of€the€subject€lots€to€make€decisions€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðadversely€impact€on€the€adjacent€homeowners€and€not€themselves.ðð€€The€trial€courtððs€reasoning€isÐ h+¸&* Ðconsistent€with€the€Restatement€(Third)€of€Property,€which€provides:€€ð ðAmendments€that€do€notÐ ° Ðapply€uniformly€to€similar€lots€or€units€.€.€.€are€not€effective€without€the€approval€of€members€whoseÐ œì Ðinterests€would€be€adversely€affected€unless€the€declaration€fairly€apprises€purchasers€that€suchÐ ˆØ Ðamendments€may€be€made.ðð€€Restatement€(Third)€of€Property:€Servitudes€Ô‡3XWeXXXWeÔððÔ#†XWeXX3XWeèe#Ô€6.10(2)€(2000).€€Ð tÄ Ðòòò òóóó óà  àCourts€from€other€jurisdictions€addressing€this€issue€are€somewhat€divided,€but€a€clearÐ L œ Ðmajority€require€that,€unless€the€amendment€provisions€provide€otherwise,€an€amendment€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplies€to€less€than€all€lots€must€have€either€unanimous€approval€or,€at€least,€approval€of€theÐ $ t Ðadversely€affected€lot€owners.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóPatrick€A.€Randolph,€òòChanging€the€Rules:€Should€Courts€LimitÐ  ` Ðthe€Power€of€Common€Interest€Communities€to€Alter€Unit€Ownersðð€Privileges€in€the€Face€of€VestedÐ ü L  ÐExpectations?€€óó38€Santa€Clara€L.€Rev.€1081,€1105€(1998)€(ð ðFor€the€most€part,€the€trend€appears€toÐ è 8  Ðintegrate€these€[amendment]€provisions€narrowly€in€order€to€protect€individual€expectations€of€aÐ Ô$  Ðuniform€scheme€from€alterations€effectuated€by€less€than€a€unanimous€group€of€homeowners.ðð);€€òòò òLaÐ À  ÐEsperanza€Townhome€Assððn,€Inc.€v.€Title€Sec.€Agency€of€Ariz.ó óóó,€689€P.2d€178,€182€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.Ð ¬ü  Ð1984)€(ð ð[I]f€all€of€the€landowners€joined€in€an€amendment€it€need€not€have€a€uniform€effect.ðð).òòò ò€€Butó óóóÐ ˜è  Ðò òòòsee€Arthur€M.€Deck€&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.€and€NFM,€Inc.€v.€Crispinó óóó,€888€S.W.2d€56,€62€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1994)Ð „Ô  Ð(finding€that,€because€the€three€subject€lots€were€substantially€different€from€other€lots€within€theÐ pÀ Ðsubdivision,€amendments€affecting€only€those€three€lots€were€valid).Ð \¬ Ðà  àFor€instance,€in€ò òòòLicker€v.€Ô_ÔHarkleroadÔ_Ôó óóó,€the€Georgia€Court€of€Appeals€dealt€with€a€provisionÐ 4„ Ðthat€allowed€the€covenants€pertaining€to€a€residential€subdivision€to€be€amended€by€a€vote€of€ð ðnotÐ  p Ðless€than€90€percent€of€the€lot€owners.ðð€ò òòòLicker€v.€Ô_ÔHarkleroadÔ_Ôó óóó,€558€S.E.2d€31,€33€(Ga.€Ct.€App.Ð  \ Ð2001).€€Ninety€percent€of€the€lot€owners€voted€to€amend€the€covenants€in€order€to€allow€theÐ øH Ðdefendants€to€construct€a€parking€lot€on€three€of€the€residential€lots.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€32.€€Several€affectedÐ ä4 Ðdissenting€residents€of€the€subdivision€filed€suit,€asserting€that€the€amendment€was€invalid€becauseÐ Ð  Ðit€did€not€apply€uniformly€to€all€lots€in€the€subdivision.€€The€Court€initially€noted€that€any€ambiguityÐ ¼  Ðin€the€restrictive€covenants€should€be€construed€ð ðin€favor€of€upholding€the€intent€to€create€aÐ ¨ø Ðresidential€use€development€with€restrictions€applicable€to€all€lots.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€34.€€The€Court€held€ð ðthatÐ ”ä Ðamendments€that€remove€the€restriction€against€commercial€use€from€less€than€all€the€lots€are€notÐ €Ð Ðvalid€without€the€consent€of€the€adversely€affected€property€owners.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó(citing€Restatement€(Third)Ð l¼ Ðof€Property€(Servitudes)€Ô‡3XWeXXXWeÔððÔ#†XWeXX3XWenr#Ô€6.10(2)€(2000)).€€Consequently,€since€the€amendment€was€not€approvedÐ X ¨ Ðby€the€affected€property€owners,€it€was€invalid.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€35„36.€€ò òòòSee€also€Lakeshore€EstatesÐ D!” ÐRecreational€Area,€Inc.€v.€Turneró óóó,€481€S.W.2d€572,€575€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1972)€(finding€that€ð ð[t]heÐ 0"€  Ðrelease€of€that€right€[to€enforce€covenants€against€other€lot€owners]€may€not€be€altered€without€theirÐ #l! Ðconsent€or€its€alteration€in€such€a€way€as€to€be€uniform€as€to€all€of€the€affected€propertyðð).€€Ð $X" ÐÔ‡XWeXXXWeÔà  àIn€this€case,€the€procedures€for€amending€the€protective€covenants€do€not€apprise€purchasersÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€amendments€to€the€covenants€may€apply€in€a€non„uniform€manner€to€lots€within€the€subdivision.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€amendment€at€issue€here€does€not€apply€uniformly€to€all€of€the€lots€in€the€subdivision.€€Finally,Ð ¸'#& Ðsince€at€least€one€of€the€property€owners€adversely€affected€by€the€proposed€amendment€is€a€plaintiffÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€this€suit€and€did€not€approve€the€amendment,€it€is€clear€that€the€amendment€did€not€receive€theÐ )à$( Ðapproval€of€members€of€the€subdivision€ð ðwhose€interests€would€be€adversely€affected.€.€.€.ðð€Ð |*Ì%) ÐRestatement€(Third)€of€Property:€Servitudes€ðð€6.10(2)€(2000).€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€mustÐ h+¸&* Ðagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€amendment€to€remove€the€restrictions€from€lots€80Ð ° Ðand€81€is€invalid.Ð œì Ðà  àWoodland€points€out€an€amendment€adopted€in€1965€by€a€majority€of€lot€owners€in€theÐ tÄ Ðsubdivision,€removing€the€restrictive€covenants€from€application€to€lots€6€and€7€in€the€subdivisionÐ `° Ðto€permit€the€building€of€a€gas€station€and€convenience€store.׃2×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Woodland€notes€the€trial€courtððsÐ L œ Ðreasoning€that,€in€order€for€an€amendment€to€a€protective€covenant€to€be€effective,€it€must€applyÐ 8 ˆ Ðuniformly€to€all€lots€in€the€subdivision.€€Based€on€this€reasoning,€Woodland€argues€that,€since€theÐ $ t Ð1965€amendment€ostensibly€applied€to€less€than€all€of€the€lots€in€the€subdivision,€ð ðthe€1965Ð  ` Ðamendment€freed€all€the€lots€within€the€Gates€Subdivision€from€the€strictures€of€the€ProtectiveÐ ü L  ÐCovenants€.€.€.ðð€€This€reasoning€can€only€be€characterized€as€sophistry.€€Assuming€arguendo€that€theÐ è 8  Ð1965€amendment€is€invalid€because€it€applies€to€only€two€lots€in€the€subdivision,€this€would€merelyÐ Ô$  Ðinvalidate€the€1965€amendment€and€does€not€make€the€underlying€restrictive€covenant€invalid.׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ À  Ð1965€amendment€has€no€bearing€on€the€applicability€of€the€restrictive€covenant€to€Woodlandððs€lotsÐ ¬ü  Ð80€and€81.€€The€remainder€of€Woodlandððs€arguments€on€appeal€are€pretermitted€by€our€holding€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€amendment€to€the€protective€covenants,€adopted€after€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€in€this€case,€isÐ „Ô  Ðinvalid.Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†XWeXXXWeu#ÔÔ‡ XWeXXXWeÔà  àThe€plaintiff€homeowners€argue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€WoodlandÐ H˜ Ðto€continue€using€its€lots€as€a€playground€so€long€as€any€playground€equipment€maintained€on€theÐ 4„ Ðlots€was€movable.€€The€plaintiffs€argue€that€such€a€ruling€ð ðallows€an€institutional€use€of€propertyÐ  p Ðwhich,€by€restrictive€covenants,€is€limited€to€residential€use.€€Further,€multiple€ððmoveableðð€pieces€ofÐ  \ Ðplayground€equipment€on€two€full€lots€could€accommodate€a€substantial€number€of€children€creatingÐ øH Ða€substantial€amount€of€noise€and€.€.€.€would€constitute€a€continuing€violation€of€the€Memphis€andÐ ä4 ÐShelby€County€zoning€ordinance.ðð€€Elsewhere€in€the€plaintiff€homeownersðð€appellate€brief,€theÐ Ð  Ðhomeowners€scoff€at€Woodlandððs€argument€ð ðthat€the€neighborhood€had€agreed€to€the€institutionalÐ ¼  Ðplayground€[later€erected€by€Woodland]€by€virtue€of€their€having€failed€to€sue€the€school€in€1996Ð ¨ø Ðwhen€a€small€plastic€toy€was€placed€on€and€moved€around€lot€81.ðð€€As€noted€above,€the€use€of€suchÐ ”ä Ðmovable€playground€equipment€is€not€a€violation€of€the€restrictive€covenant€prohibiting€a€structureÐ €Ð Ðother€than€one€incidental€to€the€residential€use€of€the€lot.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€thatÐ ° Ðthe€plaintiff€homeowners€failed€to€carry€their€burden€of€establishing€that€Woodlandððs€use€of€suchÐ œì Ðð ðsmall€plastic€toysðð€that€are€movable€constitutes€either€an€institutional€use€or€a€zoning€violation.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€courtððs€holding€in€this€regard€is€affirmed.Ô#†XWeXX XWe€#ÔÐ tÄ Ðà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally€betweenÐ L œ Ðthe€appellant,€Woodland€Presbyterian€School,€and€its€surety,€€and€the€appellees,€Amy€Wilson,€JudithÐ 8 ˆ ÐJohnson,€and€Daniel€Powell,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€Ð $ t ÐÌÌÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGE